rails_get_config

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the material behavioral detail that results are partitioned by section, but says nothing about output shape, size limits, or what happens when a section has no data. With annotations carrying the safety profile, a 3 is right.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One sentence, purpose front-loaded before the long parenthetical catalogue. The catalogue is dense but every entry maps to a real enum value and earns its place. A structured list would read better than the nested parentheses, which is the only deduction.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, so the description must carry the burden of saying what comes back, and the per-section inventory does that reasonably well. Pagination vocabulary (limit/offset) is scoped per section in the schema. The main gap is that no return shape or size expectation is given for any section.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description genuinely extends the schema: it explains what each enum value of `section` actually yields, which the schema only labels 'Which section to answer'. That content inventory is the difference between guessing a section and choosing one. It does not repeat schema-level detail about limit/offset/detail.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get the app's configuration') plus a key scoping rule ('one section per call'), then enumerates all 11 sections with the content each returns. An agent can tell what it will get. It does not, however, distinguish itself from look-alike siblings such as rails_runtime_info or rails_get_context.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The 'one section per call' phrasing implies how to use it, and the section catalogue implies which call to make for which need. But there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not, no pointer to an alternative tool, and no guidance for choosing between, say, section=api and rails_get_routes.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.